The impact of science on social institutions. Psychological vzlyad (PsyVision) - quizzes, educational materials, catalog of psychologists. Historical development of institutional forms of scientific activity

Science as cognitive

Activity

Science as productive

Force and social technology.

Science community.

Science as cognitive

Activity

Science is a special sphere of culture associated with the development, substantiation and systematic organization of objective knowledge about the world.

Knowledge is developed as a result of cognitive activity.

cognitive activity can be

and aesthetic,

and ethical,

and religious,

and direct vital-practical character.

However, in its most theoretically developed form, it appears in scientific cognition.

Exactly theoretical the knowledge developed by science is the most ordered, logically rigorous and empirically justified.

Scientific knowledge has:

Study of essential relationships and generalized patterns;

- rational the nature of the construction of scientific concepts;

High degree system organization;

Use whenever possible formalized languages, logically justified evidence.

In scientific knowledge, such regulatory principles as

“conformity principle”,

“principle of invariance”,

« verification principle»,

“falsification principle”,

“simplicity principle" and etc.

Scientific knowledge helps a person to comprehend the world and his place in it, to achieve success in professional activity, to streamline life experience, it is more reasonable to build value preferences, it is better to imagine what can be expected ahead ...

Science as a social institution.

science like social institution , characterize:

1) Collective co-creation;

2) Organizational and managerial structure (of course, this also characterizes other areas of culture);

3) Experimental and technical base;

4) Communication with production. Of course, this connection is not as obvious for the humanities as it is for the technical and natural sciences. Such a connection manifests itself in quite diverse forms (typography, the production of art reproductions, the production of paints, the production musical instruments, film and television equipment).

TSB. In the 17th - early 18th centuries. in Europe, science began to take shape social institution . And exactly then came the first learned societies and academy, and also began to publish scientific journals.

In the previous stages, the accumulation and development of scientific potential proceeded mainly informally (preservation of experience and traditions transmitted through books, teaching, correspondence and personal communication of scientists).

Until the end of the 19th century. N. remained " small , employing a relatively small number of people in their field.

At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. a new way of organizing science is emerging - large scientific institutes and laboratories, with a powerful technical base, which brings scientific activity closer to the forms of modern industrial labor.

Thus, the transformation of "small" science into " big ».

Modern science is increasingly connected with all social institutions without exception.

It permeates not only industrial and page - x. production, but also politics, administrative and military spheres.

In turn, science as a social institution is becoming the most important factor in the socio-economic potential, requiring growing costs.

... The emergence of "big" N. was primarily due to a change in the nature of its connection with technology and production.

Until the end of the 19th century. science played an auxiliary role in relation to production.

Then the development of science begins to outstrip the development of technology and production, a single system "science - technology - production" is formed, in which science plays a leading role.

In the era of the scientific and technological revolution, science is constantly transforming the structure and content of material activity.

Along with natural and technical sciences, social sciences are becoming increasingly important in modern society, setting certain guidelines for its development and studying man in all the diversity of his manifestations.

On this basis, there is an ever-increasing convergence of natural, technical and social sciences.

In the conditions of modern science, the problems of organizing and managing the development of science are of paramount importance.

The concentration and centralization of science brought to life national and international scientific organizations and centers and the systematic implementation of major international projects. In system government controlled special bodies of scientific leadership were formed. On their basis, a mechanism of scientific policy is formed, actively and purposefully influencing the development of scientific research.

Initially, the organization of N. was almost exclusively tied to the system of universities and other higher educational institutions and was built on a branch basis.

In the 20th century specialized research institutions are widely developed. The revealed trend towards a decrease in the specific efficiency of expenditures on scientific activities, especially in the field of fundamental research, gave rise to a desire for new forms of organization of N.

Scientific centers of a sectoral nature (for example, the Pushchino Center for Biological Research of the Academy of Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences in the Moscow Region) and a complex nature (for example, the Novosibirsk Scientific Center) are being developed. There are research units built on the problem principle. To solve specific scientific problems, often of an interdisciplinary nature, special creative teams are created, consisting of problem groups and combined into projects and programs (for example, the space exploration program). Centralization in the system of N.'s leadership is increasingly combined with decentralization and autonomy in conducting research. Informal problematic associations of scientists, the so-called invisible collectives, are becoming widespread. Along with them, within the framework of “big” science, informal formations continue to exist and develop, such as scientific directions and scientific schools that arose under the conditions of “small” science.

In turn, scientific methods are increasingly used as one of the means of organization and management in other areas of activity.

has become massive scientific organization of labor (NOT). It becomes one of the main levers for increasing the efficiency of social production.

Are being introduced automatic systems production management (ACS), created with the help of computers and cybernetics. The object of scientific management is increasingly becoming the human factor, primarily in human-machine systems.

The results of scientific research are used to improve the principles of managing teams, enterprises, the state, and society as a whole.

Are important for N. national features of its development.

They are expressed

In the distribution of the available composition of scientists by various countries,

National and cultural traditions of the development of certain branches of N. within the framework of scientific schools and directions,

In the ratio between fundamental and applied research on a national scale,

In state policy in relation to the development of nationalism (for example, in the size and direction of appropriations for nationality).

However, the results of science - scientific knowledge are international by its very nature.

The reproduction of science as a social institution is closely connected with the system of education and the training of scientific personnel. In the conditions of the modern scientific and technological revolution, there is a certain gap between the historically established tradition of teaching in secondary and higher schools and the needs of society (including modern society). In order to eliminate this gap, new teaching methods are being intensively introduced into the education system, using the latest achievements of N. - psychology, pedagogy, cybernetics. Education in higher education reveals a tendency to approach the research practice of N. and production.

In the field of education, the cognitive function of science is closely connected with the task of educating students as full-fledged members of society, forming in them a certain value orientation and moral qualities.

The practice of social life has convincingly shown that the ideal of the Enlightenment, according to which the universal dissemination of scientific knowledge will automatically lead to the education of highly moral personalities and a just organization of society, is utopian and erroneous. This can only be achieved by radically changing the social system.

The study of various aspects of science is carried out by a number of its specialized branches, which include the history of science, the logic of science, the sociology of science, the psychology of scientific creativity, and so on. From the middle of the 20th century a new, comprehensive approach to the study of science is intensively developing, striving for a synthetic knowledge of all its many aspects, - science of science.

Yudin SotsEnts The progressive specialization of scientific activity leads to the fact that professional training is necessary for this.

It is beginning to be provided by the social institutions of education, with which N. establishes intensive relationships.

In turn, an integral part of the scientific activity becomes an activity aimed at reproducing the social institution of science, at designing, generalizing and systematizing the results of scientific research. research, which are organized according to the norms of the subject.

I will especially present Merton's concept.

Kelle SotsEnts. He developed the concept of science as a social institution within which scientific research is carried out. activity.

This institute provides a competent assessment of the results of scientific work and the remuneration of the scientist corresponding to these results in the form of recognition, prizes, etc.

Belonging to the institution of science requires the observance of certain moral norms that form the "ethos" of science.

But the inconsistency of the emerging in the course of scientific. activities of situations, competition between scientists, the struggle for priority make their behavior ambivalent.

Among the general social conditions most conducive to the development of science, Merton names democracy.

To prove this, he studied the state of science in Nazi Germany and showed that the spiritual dictatorship of Nazism, its racist ideology, led to the decline of German science.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

FEDERAL COMMUNICATION AGENCY

FGOBU HPE "SIBERIAN STATE UNIVERSITY OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATICS"

(FGOBU VPO "SibGUTI")

Department of SPP

home writing

Course: "Fundamentals of Sociology"

On the topic: "Science as a social institution"

Novosibirsk 2013

Introduction

1. Social institutions
2. Functions and dysfunctions of social institutions
2.1 Function
2.2 Dysfunction
3. Science as a social institution
4.Social functions of science
5. The functions of science as a direct productive and social force
6. Cultural and ideological functions of science
7. Social responsibility of a scientist
findings
Bibliography

Introduction

Science plays a special role in the formation of modern society. Science is not only the most important, but also a connecting, integrating element modern culture. Science is a great spiritual, moral and intellectual force of society. The more society develops, the more its progress is ensured by the development and application of science. In institutional terms, it is a special social institution that gives stability and certainty to social relations and at the same time accelerates social development. The institutional nature of activity means that in the modern era, scientific activity is a targeted hierarchized activity, has complex organizational forms, and is based on a special material base.

In a broad sense, a social institution is interpreted as an element of the social structure, a historical form of organization and regulation of social life - a set of institutions, norms, values, cultural patterns, sustainable forms of behavior. Numerous definitions of science available in the literature agree on one thing: they all interpret science as a peculiar form of activity. Science today is becoming an increasingly significant and essential component of the reality that surrounds us and in which we somehow have to navigate, live and act.

The consideration of science as a social institution becomes to understand the social system of science in the unity of its objective and subjective sides. This is of epochal importance for explaining the patterns of development of the sciences.

The purpose and purpose of science as a social institution is the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge, the development of research tools and methods, the reproduction of scientists and the provision of their social functions.

Considering that the formation of science as a social institution is closely connected with the emergence of the profession of a scientist, I would like to consider such an issue as the social responsibility of a scientist. It lies not only in the responsibility for the scientific nature of the results of research, but also for the nature of their use in society.

1. Social institutions

In sociology, there are many definitions of a social institution. One of the first to give a detailed idea of social institutions was the American sociologist and economist Thorstein Veblen. Although his book The Theory of the Leisure Class appeared in 1899, many of its provisions have not become obsolete to this day.

The concept of "social institution" in domestic sociology is given a significant place. A social institution is defined as a single component of the social structure of society, integrating and coordinating many individual actions of people, streamlining social relations in certain areas of public life.

An institution is understood as a relatively stable set of symbols, values, norms, roles and statuses that governs a specific area of social life: family, religion, education, economy, management.

Understanding social institutions as a set of norms and mechanisms that regulate a certain area of social relations (family, production, state, education, religion), sociologists have deepened their understanding of them as the basic elements on which society rests.

Within the totality of social institutions, a subgroup of cultural institutions can be distinguished as a type of private social institutions. For example, when they say that the press, radio and television represent the "fourth power", in essence they are understood as a cultural institution. Communication institutions are the organs through which society through social structures produces and distributes information expressed in symbols. They are the main source of knowledge about the accumulated experience. A subspecies of communication institutions are libraries, museums, schools and universities, television, newspapers, radio, and cinema. The totality of all technical devices, including buildings, employees and funds of libraries, museums and schools, constitutes the infrastructure of the institutional system of culture.

2. Functions and dysfunctions of social institutions

2.1 Function

The function of a social institution is the benefit that it brings to society, i.e. it is a set of tasks to be solved, goals to be achieved, services to be rendered.

The first and most important mission of social institutions is to meet the most important vital needs of society, i.e. without which society cannot exist as a current one. Indeed, if we want to understand what the essence of the function of this or that institution is, we must directly connect it with the satisfaction of needs. E. Durheim was one of the first to point out this connection: “To ask what is the function of the division of labor means to investigate what need it corresponds to.”

Social institutions help solve vital problems for a large number of people. For example, millions of people, having fallen in love, resort to the help of the institution of marriage and family, and when they fall ill, they resort to health institutions, etc. Lawful order in society is provided by such institutions as the state, government, courts, police, advocacy, etc.

2.2 Dysfunction

If an institution, in addition to benefits, brings harm to society, then such an action is called dysfunction. An institution is said to be dysfunctional when some of the consequences of its activities interfere with the performance of another social activity or another institution. Or, as one sociological dictionary defines dysfunction, it is “any social activity that contributes negatively to the maintenance of the effective functioning of the social system.”

For example, as economic institutions develop, they place higher demands on the social functions that an educational institution should perform.

3. Science as a social institution

The formation of science as a social institution took place in the 17th - early 18th centuries, when the first scientific societies and academies were formed in Europe and the publication of scientific journals. Prior to this, the preservation and reproduction of science as an independent social entity was carried out mainly in an informal way - through traditions transmitted through books, teaching, correspondence and personal communication of scientists.

Until the end of the 19th century. science remained "small", occupying a relatively small number of people in its field. At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. a new way of organizing science is emerging - large scientific institutes and laboratories, with a powerful technical base, which brings scientific activity closer to the forms of modern industrial labor. Thus, the transformation of "small" science into "big" takes place. Science includes 15 thousand disciplines and several hundred thousand scientific journals. 20th century called century modern science. New energy sources and information Technology- perspective directions of modern science. Trends in the internationalization of science are growing, and science itself is becoming the subject of an interdisciplinary complex analysis. Not only the science of science and the philosophy of science, but also sociology, psychology, and history begin to study it. Modern science is increasingly connected with all social institutions without exception, penetrating not only industrial and agricultural production, but also politics, administrative and military spheres. In turn, science as a social institution becomes the most important factor of socio-economic potential, requires growing costs, due to which science policy is becoming one of the leading areas of social management.

The emergence of "big" science was primarily due to a change in the nature of its connection with technology and production. Until the end of the 19th century. science played an auxiliary role in relation to production. Then the development of science begins to outstrip the development of technology and production, a single system "science - technology - production" is formed, in which science plays a leading role. In the era of the scientific and technological revolution, science is constantly transforming the structure and content of material activity. dysfunction social institution science

The role of science in the era of the scientific and technological revolution has grown so exorbitantly that a new scale of its internal differentiation was required. And it was no longer just about theorists and experimenters. It became obvious that in "big" science, some scientists are more inclined towards heuristic search activity - putting forward new ideas, others - to analytical and operational - substantiation of existing ones, still others - to their verification, fourth - to the application of acquired scientific knowledge.

Along with the natural and technical sciences, social sciences are becoming increasingly important in modern society, setting certain guidelines for its development and studying a person in all the diversity of his manifestations. On this basis, there is an ever-increasing convergence of the natural, technical and social sciences.

Science as a social institution includes

1. scientists with their knowledge, qualifications and experience;

2. division and cooperation of scientific work;

3. a well-established and efficient system of scientific information;

4. scientific organizations and institutions, scientific schools and communities;

5. experimental and laboratory equipment, etc.

AT Western Europe science as a social institution arose in the 17th century in connection with the need to serve the emerging capitalist production and began to claim a certain autonomy. In the system of social division of labor, science as a social institution has assigned specific functions to itself: to be responsible for the production, examination and implementation of scientific and theoretical knowledge. As a social institution, science included not only a system of knowledge and scientific activity, but also a system of relations in science, scientific institutions and organizations.

As a social institution, science includes the following components:

* the totality of knowledge and their carriers;

* the presence of specific cognitive goals and objectives;

* performance of certain functions;

* availability of specific means of knowledge and institutions;

* development of forms of control, examination and evaluation of scientific achievements;

* the existence of certain sanctions.

The institutional nature of modern science dictates the ideal of rationality, which is entirely subject to socio-cultural and institutional requirements and regulations. The process of institutionalization includes the following components:

Responsible for the production of new knowledge academic and university science;

The concentration of resources necessary for scientific innovation and their implementation - the banking system and the financing system;

Representative and legislative bodies that legitimize innovations, such as academic councils and higher attestation commissions in the process of awarding scientific degrees and titles;

Press Institute;

Organizational and Management Institute;

A judicial institution designed to resolve or end intrascientific conflicts.

At present, the institutional approach is one of the dominant instances of the development of science. However, it has drawbacks: an exaggeration of the role of formal moments, insufficient attention to the psychological and socio-cultural foundations of people's behavior, a rigid prescriptive nature scientific activity, ignoring informal development opportunities.

4. Social functions of science

The premise of social science is the recognition of the fact that society is a special entity, distinct from nature. Consequently, social life is subject to its own laws, which differ from the laws of nature. Society is the joint existence of people.

Social science must be distinguished from the concrete sciences of society. For a long time in our country the functions of social science and sociology.

The social functions of science are not something given once and for all. On the contrary, they historically change and develop, like science itself; moreover, the development of social functions is an important aspect of the development of science itself.

Modern science is in many respects essentially, radically different from the science that existed a century or even half a century ago. Its entire appearance and the nature of its interrelations with society have changed.

5. The functions of science as a direct productive and social force

As for the functions of science as a direct productive force, these functions seem to us today, perhaps, not only the most obvious, but also the first, primordial. And this is understandable, given the unprecedented scale and pace of modern scientific and technological progress, the results of which are tangibly manifested in all sectors of life and in all spheres of human activity. However, historically, the picture appears in a different light. The process of turning science into a direct productive force was first recorded and analyzed by K. Marx in the middle of the last century, when the synthesis of science, technology and production was not so much a reality as a prospect.

During the formation of science as a social institution, the material prerequisites for the implementation of such a synthesis matured, the intellectual climate necessary for this was created, and an appropriate way of thinking was developed. Of course, even then scientific knowledge was not isolated from rapidly developing technology, but the connection between them was one-sided. Some of the problems that arose during the development of technology became the subject of scientific research and even gave rise to new scientific disciplines. So it was, for example, with hydraulics, with thermodynamics. Science itself gave little practical activity - industry, agriculture, medicine. And the matter was not only in the insufficient level of development of science, but above all in the fact that practice itself, as a rule, did not know how, and did not feel the need to rely on the achievements of science, or even simply take them into account systematically. Until the middle of the 19th century, the cases when the results of science found practical application were episodic and did not lead to universal awareness and rational use those richest opportunities that promised the practical use of the results of scientific research.

An important aspect of the transformation of science into a direct productive force is the creation and strengthening of permanent channels for the practical use of scientific knowledge, the emergence of such branches of activity as applied research and development, the creation of scientific and technical information networks, etc. Moreover, following industry, such channels also appear in other branches of material production and even beyond. All this entails significant consequences for both science and practice.

If we talk about science, then it first of all receives a new powerful impetus for its development, since "the application of science to direct production itself becomes for it one of the defining and motivating moments." For its part, practice is more and more clearly oriented towards a stable and continuously expanding relationship with science. For modern production, and not only for it, the ever wider application of scientific knowledge appears as an indispensable condition for the very existence and reproduction of many types of activity that arose in their time without any connection with science, not to mention those generated by it.

A curious example confirming that science has always tried to present itself as an additional social strength, is associated with the first demonstration of such a purely "contemplative" instrument as a telescope, which Galileo, introducing to the senators of the Venetian Republic, promoted as a means of distinguishing enemy ships "two or more hours" earlier.

6. Cultural and ideological functions of science

Culture as a holistic phenomenon presupposes the existence of certain procedures. They capture patterns of behavior that are recognized by this association of people as positive. However, neither in science nor in culture as a whole does the cult, of course, play such a significant role as it plays in religion.

During the period of the formation of science as a special social institution (and this is the period of the crisis of feudalism, the emergence of bourgeois social relations and the formation of capitalism, that is, the Renaissance and modern times), its influence was found primarily in the sphere of worldview, where during all this time there was a sharp and stubborn struggle between theology and science.

In the Middle Ages, theology gradually won the position of the supreme authority, called upon to discuss and solve fundamental worldview problems, such as the question of the structure of the universe and the place of man in it, the meaning and higher values of life, etc. In the sphere of the emerging science, problems remained more private and "earthly" order.

A lot of time had to pass, which absorbed such dramatic episodes as the burning of G. Bruno, the abdication of G. Galileo. Ideological conflicts in connection with the teachings of Charles Darwin on the origin of species, before science could become the decisive authority in matters of paramount worldview significance relating to the structure of matter and the structure of the Universe, the emergence and essence of life, the origin of man. It took even more time for the answers offered by science to these and other questions to become elements of general education. Without this, scientific ideas could not turn into constituent part society culture. Simultaneously with this process of the emergence and strengthening of the cultural and ideological functions of science, the pursuit of science gradually became in the eyes of society an independent and quite worthy, respectable sphere of human activity. In other words, the formation of science as a social institution in the structure of society took place.

7. Social responsibility of a scientist

Having considered the social essence of scientific knowledge, I would like to turn to the clarification of such an acute issue at the present time - the question of the social responsibility of scientists.

For all its modernity and relevance, the problem of social responsibility of a scientist has deep historical roots. For centuries, since the birth of scientific knowledge, faith in the power of reason was accompanied by doubt: how will its creations be used? Is knowledge a power that serves man, and will it not turn against him? The words of the biblical preacher Ecclesiastes are widely known: “... in much wisdom there is much sorrow; and whoever increases knowledge, increases sorrow"

Among the areas of scientific knowledge in which the issues of the social responsibility of a scientist and the moral and ethical assessment of his activity are especially sharply and intensely discussed, a special place is occupied by genetic engineering, biotechnology, biomedical and genetic research of a person; they are all pretty close to each other. It was the development of genetic engineering that led to a unique event in the history of science, when in 1975 the world's leading scientists voluntarily entered into a moratorium, temporarily suspending a number of studies that were potentially dangerous not only for humans, but also for other life forms on our planet.

However, the other side of this breakthrough in the field of genetics was the potential threats lurking in it for man and mankind.

Even the simple negligence of the experimenter or the incompetence of the laboratory staff in safety measures can lead to irreparable consequences. Genetic engineering methods can bring even more harm when they are used by all kinds of malefactors or for military purposes. The danger is primarily due to the fact that the organisms with which experiments are most often carried out are widely distributed in natural conditions and can exchange genetic information with their "wild" relatives. As a result of such experiments, it is possible to create organisms with completely new hereditary properties that have not previously been found on Earth and are not evolutionarily determined.

Nevertheless, discussions around the ethical problems of genetic engineering have by no means subsided. A person, as some of their participants note, can construct a new form of life that is sharply different from everything known to us, but he will not be able to return it back to non-existence...

These discussions discuss the possibilities of artificially constructing human individuals. And the intensity of the discussions is explained not so much by the extent to which these possibilities are real, but by the fact that they force people to perceive in many ways in a new way or more acutely such eternal problems as the problems of man, his freedom and destiny. The prospects opened up by genetics are already beginning to have an impact today, making us wonder, for example, whether we want and should want clonal reproduction in humans. And modern people have to look more closely at themselves in order to understand what they want, what they strive for and what they consider unacceptable.

Today, many just as recklessly deny the humanistic essence of the development of science. The belief has spread that the goals and aspirations of science and society today are divided and have come into irreparable contradictions, that the ethical norms of modern science are almost opposite to universal social, ethical and humanistic norms and principles, and the scientific search has long gone out of the moral control and Socratic postulates "knowledge and virtue are inseparable" has already been written off into the archive.

Scientific and technological progress not only exacerbates many of the existing contradictions of the existing social development, but also gives rise to new ones. Moreover, its negative manifestations can lead to catastrophic consequences for the destinies of all mankind. However, scientific and technological progress, as such, like any historical development, is irreversible. But one should not think that people are left meekly submitting to the development of science and technology, adapting as much as possible to its negative consequences. Specific areas of scientific and technological progress, scientific and technical projects and decisions affecting the interests of both living and future generations - this is what requires a broad, open, democratic and at the same time competent discussion, this is what people can accept or reject by their will.

findings

The goals and objectives that I set for myself were fulfilled.

Bibliography

Dobrov G.M. Science about science. - Kyiv, 1966.

Kochergin A.N., Semenov E.V., Semenova N.N. Science as a kind of spiritual production. - Novosibirsk: Science, 1981.

Leiman I.I. Science as a social institution. - L., 1971.

Hosted on Allbest.ru

The institutionalization of science

The beginning of the institutionalization of science dates back to the $17th century.$ By the time when science begins to take shape as an independent social phenomenon. Science becomes the basis of production and technology. At this time in European countries Ah, the first academies of sciences appear, scientific journals begin to be published.

The next milestone in the history of the development of science as a social institution was the creation of scientific laboratories and scientific institutes equipped with the proper technical equipment. Science turns into a "big science" and finally takes the form of a social institution. It establishes a connection with politics, industrial and military production.

Along with this, there are scientific schools that are formed around a certain theory or scientist. This contributes to the education of a new generation of researchers and opens up space for the further generation of new ideas.

In addition, along with official communities among scientists, “informal” groups of scientists are formed, designed for a private exchange of experience and information.

The "ethos" of science

R. Merton, a sociologist of science, in the $middle of the 20th century, formulates the principles that establish the behavior of a scientist within the framework of science as a social institution. These imperatives constitute the "ethos" of science.

Universalism. Science does not involve personal knowledge. The results of scientific research are objective and applicable in all similar situations, that is, they are universal. In addition, this principle states that the degree of scientific contribution and its value cannot depend on national or any other affiliation.
Collectivism. Any scientific discovery is the property of the community. Therefore, the scientist is obliged to publish the results of his research.
Unselfishness. This principle is aimed at eradicating from science "unhealthy" competition, thirsting for financial enrichment. The scientist must have as his goal the attainment of truth.
Organized skepticism. On the one hand, this principle confirms the general methodological setting of science, on the basis of which the scientist is obliged to subject the object of his research to critical analysis, on the other hand, within the framework of science itself, scientists must critically consider the results of their own or previous research.

Increment of knowledge and technology

Science as a social institution is subject to processes similar to social ones. In science, "normal development" and revolutions are possible. "Normal development" implies a gradual increase in knowledge. The scientific revolution stands on the positions of a paradigm shift, common system scientific methods and views on their fundamental foundations.

Modern society is largely dependent on science. It forms a person's idea of the world and gives him the technology to live in it. In modern conditions, a scientific discovery is the appearance new technology. The level of development of science determines the degree of technological equipment of the industry. Technologization of science is the cause of many global problems modernity, mainly related to ecology.

On the other hand, the question arises: is it possible to “get around” this pluralism for educational and disciplinary purposes and develop a common, invariant part of the content of the “history and philosophy of science” as a subject candidate minimum? My answer is yes. It is possible to form and formulate a consensually acceptable part of the philosophy of science by observing the following two conditions: 1) focusing on the discussion of such a list of problems that is constantly reproduced in most "philosophies of science" regardless of their specific solutions; 2) analysis of such general problems of the philosophy of science that are relevant for understanding not only its history, but also its current state and possible

future. And this is achievable only if we follow the path of maximum convergence of the “philosophy of science” and “general science of science”, which means the wide use of the results of various science disciplines (history of science, psychology of science, logic and methodology of science, scientific management, sociology of science, economics of science, scientific policy and legal regulation of scientific activity, scientometrics, etc.). In other words, when presenting the problems of the philosophy of science within the framework of the candidate's minimum, the balance between "philosophy" and "science" should be significantly shifted in favor of science and its self-knowledge.

S. LEBEDEV, professor

E. MIRSKY, Doctor of Philosophy. Sciences NzuCE CEC

social institution

Paradoxically, until the first decades of the twentieth century, science did not become social problem, and therefore has not become a stable subject of comprehensive study. Before the First World War, science acted as a treasury of knowledge for technical progress, and the sociology of knowledge of that period dealt primarily with the role and nature of the direct impact of scientific knowledge on the spiritual sphere of society (ideology, politics, etc.).

The need for an interdisciplinary study of science as the most important institution of modern society first manifested itself during the revision of its social role and organizational restructuring. The subject and theoretical foundations of such a study were formed in the 1920s in the USSR.

Unprecedented in their radicalism and energy, the measures taken in relation to their scientific potential by the leadership of the young republic did not dream of European specialists in the sociology of knowledge in nightmares, although in a sense they were based on the same ideas. The scientists were divided into two groups. The first was made up of the humanitarian intelligentsia with its characteristic critical attitude towards any government, and even more so towards the dictatorship. From this group, primarily from its elite, the authorities decided to simply get rid of, sending those who survived the revolution, partly to emigration ("philosophical ship"), and the majority - for re-education in specially created concentration camps. In their place, a new, proletarian intelligentsia, not infected with the spirit of criticism, was to grow up.

stva, loyal to the government and its great undertakings. The main task of the social sciences was " scientific rationale» landmark decisions taken by the party bureaucracy, their propaganda and registration in Marxist terms.

The second group included specialists in the field of mathematics, natural and technical sciences, who were entrusted with the scientific support of accelerated socio-economic development. Strategic definition of the main guidelines for this development

The phenomenon itself is unprecedented in history - it was called "science policy", which is still used throughout the world.

The first large-scale examples of "science policy" and its implementation were the GOELRO plan and the development of the first five-year plan for the development of the country. This period also includes attempts to comprehend the new role of science, the economic support and the organization that science needs to perform such tasks. In this "romantic" period of the development of Soviet science, the works of researchers appear who are trying to comprehend the new role of science in society. The historical roots of the social functioning of science (B. Gessen), the models and methods that can be applied to study it (M. Gruzintsev), and the prospects for a comprehensive study are analyzed in depth. social processes in science (I. Borichevsky), work is underway to create a “general organizational science” (A. Bogdanov), to determine the economic efficiency of scientists’ work (S. Strumilin), etc.

It quickly became clear, however, that knowledge of the natural and technical sciences is absolutely not suitable for masking political failures and voluntaristic decisions.

new leadership of the country. Conclusions followed immediately. Intersectoral balance models, etc. were declared "bourgeois figures", an intensive and unsuccessful search for "pests" among scientists in the world of scientific and technical intelligentsia began. Accordingly, all public professional organizations of the scientific community of the USSR were crushed. They were replaced by public-state surrogates such as state academies of sciences, which are under full control of the party-state. Finally, almost all data on the state and structure of the country's scientific potential were closed. For many decades, the sociological study of science was suspended.

Meanwhile, interest in this topic in the world continued to grow, and left-wing researchers close to Marxism played a significant role, among which such a major figure as John Desmond Bernal should be singled out. The fundamental work "The Social Function of Science" was published in January 1939. The theme of the book is briefly introduced in the subtitle "What is science and what it can do." The ideas of the book about science for all, about the service of science to society, about the planned beginning in science, about the importance of the applications of science to change the fate of man - all these ideas became the subject of criticism. During the Second World War, they went through an incubation period, and with its end, they became part of the general belief that from now on everything should go in a new way.

Scientists were categorically not satisfied that among the main characters of the bloody military theater, next to the names of valiant generals (G. Zhukov, D. Eisenhower, C. de Gaulle, etc.), there appeared the names of no less valiant colleagues in the scientific workshop (N. Wiener,

W. von Braun, S. Korolev, R. Oppenheimer, I. Kurchatov...).

The matter, however, was not limited to purely moral issues. Much more significant was the fact that science after the end of the war was not so easy to "demobilize". The extensive nature of the development of science during the war years, when the very existence of the country depended on the creation of new effective weapons systems, required the involvement of ever new resources; any sacrifices were justified by the need to achieve the main goal ("Everything for victory!").

For the first time post-war years the ideology of “big” science, organized according to the hierarchical principle adopted in large industries, was formed and even found a theoretical justification. The sobering up came pretty quickly. The path of development of "big" science turned out to be a dead end, primarily economically.

If the goal of state policy is not success in solving any one very important problem (for example, victory in a war) at any cost, but the economic development and prosperity of the state, then concentrating efforts in a certain narrow direction and sacrificing everything else is difficult to justify and explain to the population of a democratic country. The alternative was the transition to an intensive path of development of science, the search for its internal resources (organizational, informational, etc.), which fell out of sight in "big" science.

Naturally, this search could be entrusted and entrusted only to the scientists themselves. And in the 1950s, in the USA and other countries, a huge program of research on the sociological, psychological, economic, organizational and other features of the development of science as a social

institute. In this program, the emerging sociology of science has taken its rightful place.

Sociology of science

The formation of the sociology of science as an independent field of knowledge is rightly associated with the work of one of the greatest sociologists of the twentieth century, Robert King Merton.

R. Merton's appeal to the sociology of science was associated with a critical analysis of the existing concepts of the sociology of knowledge, the recognition of its fundamental inability to make significant progress in the study of science and scientific knowledge. Such advancement required a significant change in the object of research and a clear description of the research field. Experience in this area since the 1930s (the book "Science, Technology and Society in England in the 17th century", a number of articles on disputes about the priority in the history of science, attempts to describe the norms of behavior of scientists, etc.) R. Merton to formulate general requirements for the special field of sociology, the creation of which he intended to do.

1. As a branch of sociology, the sociology of science must contribute to the development of sociological knowledge as a whole.

2. The sociology of science must have its own subject, a special conceptual base and its own research methods.

3. Claiming the universality of its concepts and methods, it must allow the study of its own ideas and tools with the help of them.

A clear and ambitious formulation of the characteristics of the new sphere of sociological research did not imply a rejection of theoretical developments and intuitive ideas, with which the history of research was so rich.

science and public discussion of related problems. On the contrary, R. Merton, who was well acquainted with the history of science, strove to determine his attitude to its most important problems, giving their interpretation, if necessary, in terms of a new sociological discipline.

R. Merton is considered to be the founder of the "institutional" sociology of science, since science for him is primarily a social institution. And any social institution from the point of view of structural and functional analysis (T. Parsons) is a specific system of relations, values and norms of behavior. To establish the specifics of the sociology of science, it was important to show the typological differences of this institution in the modern social system.

According to R. Merton, this requirement is fully met by the internal type of institutional organization of science - the "community", which singles out the institute of science from the state bureaucracy. The most important organizational characteristics of a social system such as "community" (community, Gemeinschaft) are reliance on the idea of a common goal, stable traditions, authority and self-organization. Its arsenal lacks the mechanisms of power, direct coercion, and fixed membership that are characteristic of systems such as "society" (society, Gesellschaft). (This choice was quite consistent with both the spirit of the times - it was in the post-war years in American society that there was a sharp increase in interest in the role of civil society institutions and their coexistence with the state bureaucracy, and in the process of formation of scientists in American universities, where a postgraduate graduate simultaneously with a scientific degree received a ten-year experience of living in a

real self-government and corporate behavior skills).

It was necessary to show how the scientific community can guarantee the integrity of science as a field of activity and its effective functioning, despite the fact that scientists are dispersed in space, working in different social, cultural and organizational environments.

The conceptual framework of Merton's sociology of science included the following constructive aggregates. The integrity of the community should be set by a common goal and the intensive activity of each participant to achieve it. Accordingly, the reward system should be written clearly and transparently. Since the activities are carried out in a competitive environment, the rules and regulations that guarantee fair competition should be simple and understandable to all participants. The sharpness of competition should be specially stimulated - so that the intensity of activity is maximum. The system must be highly stable so that the activities of participants are not subject to significant distortions under the influence of local conditions (cultural traditions and laws of the country of residence; specific organizational forms at the place of work of participants; ideological and political differences).

R. Merton formulates the goal of science as clearly as possible in the traditions of British empirical philosophy: "The constant growth of an array of certified scientific knowledge." In this formulation, he leaves out the questions of truth, "objectivity" of scientific knowledge, that is, all philosophical problems and plots. “Certified” means recognized as such by the scientific community today. If a

Tomorrow, due to the progress of science, ideas about scientific knowledge will change, and the community will use other criteria and assessments to “certify” and evaluate it. These changes, like legal laws, are retroactive only in favor of the "defendant". No one will judge him for the mistakes he made along with the community. However, if an idea not evaluated in time is found in his early work, his priority will be ensured.

According to this understanding common purpose community, the concept of “individual contribution” of each participant is also interpreted. Recognition is rewarded not just for a quantum of new knowledge (idea, theory, hypothesis, observation or formula), but above all for a contribution to a common cause - that which helps the entire community to move towards a common goal. In this regard, new knowledge receives the status of a contribution (and the author

Priority) only after its author communicates his result to all participants through standard information channels for the community. In conditions of intense competition, when sometimes hundreds of researchers work on the same problem all over the world, such an understanding of the contribution is the only way to at least somewhat mitigate the sharpness of the struggle for priority and give it civilized forms. The result, certified by the editorial board and published in a disciplinary journal, is recognized as an event that "closes" the problem under study at the moment. This result is included in disciplinary knowledge. It can be discussed and refuted, but it cannot be neglected - this is evidence of incompetence. Thus, a contribution to disciplinary knowledge (the main measure of a scientist's merits before the community) is either the transfer to the category of "solved" some

new problem, or a refutation or correction of a solution to a problem that was already known.

Perhaps the greatest, in some places still unstoppable, discussion was caused by the imperatives of scientific ethos formulated by R. Merton, which provide the normative component of the scientific community.

Imperatives are a kind of minimum standards that guarantee fair competition in science, the basis of professional behavior. The attempts of many sociologists to discover and fix these imperatives empirically have not led, and could not lead to success. These imperatives were theoretically derived by R. Merton, reconstructed on the basis of his observations of the behavior of members of the scientific community, in particular, various forms deviant behaviour. Imperatives are by no means norms regulating the behavior of an individual scientist. It is the attitude towards his behavior and the results of his work that he must (must - the meaning of any imperative) expect from the community, the reaction he must count on in order to achieve scientific recognition. Recognition itself is not the result of compliance with any norms - in science only excellent successes are evaluated, exemplary behavior and diligence are remembered only in case of their absence.

R. Merton formulates four imperatives: universalism, collectivism, organized skepticism and unselfishness.

Universalism emphasizes the extra-personal nature of scientific knowledge. Scientific statements refer to objectively existing phenomena and relationships, and they must be valid wherever there are similar conditions; the truth of the statement

ny does not depend on who they are expressed.

Universalism proclaims equal rights to engage in science and to a scientific career for people of any nationality and any social status. It determines the international and democratic nature of science.

Collectivism requires the scientist to immediately provide the results of his research for the use of the community. Scientific discoveries are the product of cooperation, they form a common property, in which the share of the individual "producer" is very limited; and he should communicate his discoveries to other scientists immediately after verification, freely and without preference. "property rights" in science ( we are talking about fundamental science) actually exists only in the form of recognition of the priority of the author.

Selflessness prescribes the scientist to build his activity, as if he had no other interests besides comprehending the truth. In fact, this imperative is the maximum expression of the “academic freedom” to which a real scientist is doomed. R. Merton sets out the requirement of disinterestedness as a warning against actions committed in order to achieve faster or wider professional recognition within science.

Organized skepticism

R. Merton considers it as a feature of the method of the natural sciences, which requires, in relation to any subject, a detailed objective analysis and excludes the possibility of uncritical acceptance. There is no analogue of the presumption of innocence in science. The author of the contribution must prove to critics the value and promise of his result. They are not only

have the right, but also the obligation to doubt, protecting the existing body of knowledge from insufficiently substantiated claims. The imperative of organized skepticism creates an atmosphere of responsibility, institutionally reinforces the professional honesty of scientists, prescribed to them by the norm of disinterestedness. The scientist must be ready for a critical perception of his result.

The functional meaning of the imperatives of scientific ethos, their orienting role in the behavior of a scientist is due to the fact that the very system of distribution of confessions and, accordingly, the motivation of the researcher constantly puts him in the situation of choosing one of the mutually exclusive alternatives.

R. Merton formulates this set of alternatives in the form of a list, each position of which implies a choice between equally justified strategies of behavior - "ambivalence". There are nine items on the list.

So, the scientist must:

■ communicate their scientific results to colleagues as soon as possible, but should not rush into publications;

■ be receptive to new ideas, but do not succumb to intellectual "fashion";

■ seek to obtain such knowledge that will be highly appreciated by colleagues, but at the same time work without paying attention to the assessments of others;

■ advocate new ideas, but do not support rash conclusions;

■ make every effort to know the work related to his field, but at the same time remember that erudition sometimes inhibits creativity;

■ be extremely thorough in wording and details, but not be a pedant, because this is to the detriment of the content;

■ always remember that knowledge is universal, but do not forget that any

a scientific discovery does honor to the nation whose representative it is made;

■ educate a new generation of scientists, but do not give too much attention and time to teaching; learn from a great master and imitate him, but not be like him.

The conceptual framework of the sociology of science built by R. Merton has withstood the test of time and became the basis for further research, a significant part of which was already based on the consideration of science as a profession.

Social characteristics of the scientific profession

The identification of the specifics of the social system of science assumed its deep rootedness in a broader cultural education, which R. Merton, following one of the fathers of modern sociology, Max Weber, saw in the European urban culture of the New Age, in the formation and development of free craft professions. Accordingly, the area of sociology closest to the sociology of science was the sociology of professions, which was based on patterns of professional behavior institutionalized in the activities of craft workshops, merchant guilds, etc.

These samples have been well studied by historians and are quite open to sociological interpretation. The profession united in the workshop people who were personally free from serfdom or service, that is, who were able to independently make decisions and be responsible for them to the workshop community.

In describing the modern free profession as an organizational opposition to bureaucracy, certain fundamental elements had to be found and described.

tal determinants of professional behavior that could be compared or opposed to the determinants of behavior characteristic of a bureaucratic organization.

At the same time, a significant difference between modern professions was also revealed. This difference was the key role of culture as a constitutive element of the professional tradition. Therefore, the objects of the sociology of professions increasingly became those that developed on the basis of continuously accumulating knowledge. It is no coincidence that for many decades medicine has acted as an exemplary standard object of the sociology of professions, in which it was the developed intellectual component that determined the codified norms of behavior, as well as connections with various social groups and institutions.

Thus, the problem of the theoretical context of the sociology of science has received convincing justification in the form of a special area of the sociology of professions. Accordingly, the sociological study of science involved the study of the science-specific manifestation of the characteristics recognized as the main features of any free profession.

The list of these characteristics is as follows.

1. Possession of a certain set of specialized knowledge, for the storage, transfer and expansion of which the institutions of the professions are responsible. It is the possession of such knowledge that distinguishes professionals from the "uninitiated", and this possession, when demonstrated, is called "expertise".

2. The autonomy of the profession in attracting new members, training them and supervising their professional

behavior. Professionals are judged not by such things as manners, place of birth, or political convictions, but by their possession of relevant knowledge and the extent to which they participate in multiplying it. Since only peers can judge a professional by these criteria, the profession must either win back a great deal of autonomy for itself or eventually disintegrate altogether.

3. The presence within the profession of forms of remuneration that act as a sufficient incentive for specialists and provide them with high motivation regarding their professional career. It is about the need for a kind of remuneration that would serve as a sufficient incentive for professionals, while at the same time being controlled not so much by outsiders as by the profession itself. To the extent that a professional "earns" a remuneration that is determined by the opinions and desires of non-professionals, he is susceptible to the temptation to change the principles of his profession (as is the case with doctors who perform illegal operations, or lawyers who resort to the services of false witnesses).

4. The interest of the social environment of the profession in the product of the activities of its members, which guarantees both the existence and effectiveness of professional institutions. For the self-preservation of the profession, it is necessary to establish relations between it and its social environment that would provide it with support, as well as protection from non-professional interference in its main interests. In the early stages of development, professions usually need a protective environment, such as the protection of a church, a powerful patron, or the financial independence of the professionals themselves. Perhaps per-

The main service that the young profession renders to its patrons is the prestige of "ostentatious" consumption (in which the main goal is to impress others), although later it must also demonstrate its ability to bring more practical benefits to people far from it. In exchange for these services, professionals receive material support and an appropriate amount of prestige.

Sociologists of science were required to demonstrate that the scientific profession had a highly effective information and communication infrastructure. Thanks to it, we can say that all professionals do not just strive to achieve a common goal, but work in a coordinated manner to multiply the same cultural array, a body of scientific knowledge, about the ways of “certifying” which at any moment of time they have the opportunity to come to an agreement.

Finally, it was necessary to find an empirical object on which to study the totality of the main characteristics of the scientific profession, including the corresponding information connections. Science as a whole, by definition, could not act as such an object, since there is simply no regular operational communication between communities, for example, chemists and philologists. An area in which it makes sense to look for such communication could be a community of researchers who are meaningfully related to each other.

These culturally united research systems, traditionally called disciplinary communities, were chosen as the main object, or, in methodological terms, the main unit of analysis.

Bearing in mind the features of a “free” profession outlined above, let us consider, on the basis of this unit of analysis, the main characteristics of the scientific profession.

1. The cultural component of the scientific profession

The specificity of the scientific profession is manifested primarily in the fact that its cultural component - the totality of special knowledge - in its many forms and manifestations, contains its main content. The product of science, which in the eyes of society appears as "scientific knowledge", is not the data of any individual study, but the result of the work of a whole factory for processing primary research information, its expertise, theoretical and methodological analysis, system processing, etc. As soon as this result receives the status of scientific knowledge, it, strictly speaking, ceases to interest scientists (until the time comes for its revision) and is taken out of science.

The constant replenishment of the body of certified scientific knowledge as the goal of science is a multi-stage processing of the information flow that continuously comes from the cutting edge of research. Practically all members of the disciplinary community take part in the work on the "certification" (examination) of a particular result as a fragment claiming the status of a contribution to knowledge. Therefore, the results themselves are always presented to the community in a clearly standardized form of scientific publication (oral or written), in which both the content of the result and the names of its authors are fixed.

The disciplinary publication array is clearly organized, which enables each participant to work

with a relatively small piece of knowledge and make their contribution quite economically. The "binding" of the contribution to the structure of the array is ensured by its location in the system of headings of disciplinary publications and due to the system of links that determine the spatial "coordinates" of each piece of knowledge and connection with a wider disciplinary environment. The effectiveness of these methods of array structuring has been confirmed by numerous studies on scientific information.

Structuring an array of publications over time makes it possible to significantly expand the area of current knowledge. To do this, the array of publications that are actually valid at any given time is divided into “echelons” located at different distances from the leading edge of research. For the participants, these "echelons" act as different genres of publication (article, review, monograph...). A fragment of knowledge published in each genre retains its relevance only for some strictly defined time. The lifetime, however, is extended for those fragments of knowledge that, after selection, go into publication of the next genre: from an article to a review, from a review to a monograph, and so on.

Publication array structure

"Entrance" of the array of publications - manuscripts of articles reporting on the results of research. During the course of the study, and especially when it is completed, the task of its participants is to isolate from overall result(performed for a specific purpose) those fragments of it that are of interest to their disciplines and can be regarded as their contribution to knowledge. These fragments of the general result, interpreted in disciplinary terms, whose authorship is

tends the researcher to the disciplinary community, and are issued in the form of an article for the corresponding special journal.

Having taken this step, the scientist, as it were, presents his contribution to a diverse and theoretically unlimited examination (reviewing and evaluating a manuscript, reading and evaluating an article, using its content in replenishing or rebuilding knowledge on a problem, etc.). Any colleague has the rights of an expert in one form or another, just as the author of this article acquires such a right with respect to all other publications of the discipline, and this right is formalized and grows along with the status of a scientist.

In order to interpret the publication genres as "echelons" of the disciplinary array, we will arrange them depending on the temporal distance from the "entrance". The meter is taken as the minimum length of time that is necessary for the result obtained at the forefront to be published in each of the genres. The echeloned sequence (with inevitable simplifications) will look like this:

1) articles (journal articles and publications of reports of scientific meetings) -1.5 - 2 years;

2) reviews (confirming reports, reviews of periodicals and reviews of scientific meetings held by the disciplinary association for any period of time) - 3-4 years;

3) monographs (thematic collections, monographic articles, individual and collective monographs) - 5-7 years;

4) textbooks (textbooks, teaching aids, anthologies, popular science presentations of the content of the discipline, etc.).

The activity on the formation of a layered array of publications makes it possible to single out a relatively small and fundamentally observable group of publications from the entire mass of the disciplinary archive. Only relatively new publications of each tier fall into this group, the content of which is not included in subsequent tiers through selection and processing. This group actually functions as part of an array of publications at any given time. The set of specific units in each echelon and the array as a whole (the list of titles of publications), thus, is constantly changing, i.e. we are talking about the information flow, the filters and converters of which at certain stages are the activities of scientists forming the echelons.

All this gives grounds to assert that from the point of view of the organization of knowledge, we can observe two different processes in the development of science, somewhat analogous to ontogenesis and phylogenesis in biology. The ontogenetic process is localized between the cutting edge and, say, the echelon of textbooks. In the course of this process, knowledge, scientific “by definition” (the result of scientific research, which is in some connection with other results and components of disciplinary knowledge), turns into knowledge, scientific “by truth” (is built into the structure of the fundamental theoretical and normative-value representations of this disciplines). This is where ontogenesis ends - the result ceases its isolated existence, loses its genetic connections with research, with the position of an individual author or some scientific group. It becomes a scientific fact (law, effect, constant, variable, etc.) associated only with other elements on the

scientific system, an element of "eternal" (to date) scientific knowledge. It can no longer be crossed out, refuted, modified, or even judged on its own. Any action with it, any change in it can occur only within the framework of phylogenesis - as a change in the system of knowledge to which this element belongs.

Decisions on the selection of publications for information processing (ie, to retain certain content components in the array) are made on the basis of certain criteria. The flow dynamics is based on the fact that the criteria for selecting information in the formation of an echelon and the criteria for evaluating information within the echelon do not coincide and even contradict each other in a certain sense. The content of the manuscript sent to the journal is evaluated according to the criterion of correctness; the content of the article is evaluated according to the criterion of fruitfulness (otherwise it will not be referenced, and it will not fall into the array of reviews). Units for the echelon of reviews are formed according to the criterion of fruitfulness, but they are transferred to an array of monographs depending on their reliability, etc. In addition, the specific content of each criterion changes along with the development of the discipline. Therefore, the rationality of the decisions made in the eyes of the scientific community is supported by the qualifications and authority of the specialists making the selection (editors and reviewers of journals, authors of reviews, monographs, etc.).

Publication Array Functions

The generality and structure of the disciplinary array of publications are of great importance for the consolidation and stratification of the scientific community of the discipline. The appearance of the name

or another member of the community in several echelons of publications is a recognition of his status and an assessment of his contribution to the discipline. This assessment follows two lines. The first is a characteristic of the research result as a contribution to the development of the content of disciplinary knowledge. Such an assessment is fixed by citing the work in subsequent publications. In this capacity, the publications of different echelons are far from equal: for example, a single mention of a work in a textbook "worth" dozens and hundreds of journal references in the eyes of the community. The second line is associated with the high prestige of the direct participation of a community member in the formation of individual publication echelons, his activities as a member of the editorial board of a journal, author of a monograph, textbook, etc. of them becomes possible only due to the presence of a layered array of publications common to the discipline.

The content of the array thus gives the most operational idea of the current state of the discipline as a whole: the currently achieved level of a holistic image of the scientific content of the discipline in its educational specializations (textbook echelon), the state of systematic consideration of the largest problems (monograph echelon), the directions of the most intensive research and approaches to the study of each problem (echelon of reviews), methods of research, results obtained and names of researchers (echelon of articles).

This information plays an important role in ensuring the process of replenishing the discipline with new specialists.

mi - both at the expense of scientific youth, and thanks to the migration of mature researchers within the discipline and between disciplines. The way units are organized within each echelon provides the migrant with the opportunity to move as quickly as possible to the cutting edge of research, limiting himself to familiarization within each echelon with increasingly narrow blocks of information. The number of necessary stages in each individual case is different and varies depending on the initial training of the migrant. For a beginner in the discipline, it turns out that it is necessary to go through all the stages, starting with textbooks. For a specialist who wants to change the direction of research within the same field, this need is limited to the content of a block of articles or a review.

Thus, the body of culture of the scientific profession, the totality of its specialized knowledge, plays a special role in the existence and development of the social system of science. The peculiarities of working with the cultural corpus also determine the specifics of the training of scientific personnel.

2. Reproduction of the scientific profession as a social system

As society develops, there are more and more specialties, the intellectual component of which requires primary scientific training, and at the same time, ideas about the content, timing and forms of this kind of training are changing. The scientific profession has never been able to compete with other specialties either in terms of its material reward or prestige. In all countries and at all times, the average salary of a scientist (leaving aside

stars and luminaries - their few) did not exceed the salary of an average government official, and the glory of the "dissipated man" in the mass consciousness could not be compared with the prestige of a politician, artist or commander. Perhaps the only advantage of a professional scientist is the opportunity to do what you love.

Therefore, in order to make a conscious choice of a scientific profession, young people should present their prospects in this field already in the process of preparation. However, the point from which such a perspective is visible, with the passage of time, moves away more and more. In the 19th century, a university graduate already generally had sufficient ideas about the scientific profession to make an informed choice. In the last century, the newcomer was introduced to the characteristics of the scientific profession in the process of studying and participating in research, being a graduate student. Obtaining the first scientific degree actually determined the choice of a scientific career.

At the end of the twentieth century, the situation changed significantly. Outwardly, the new problems looked like the aging of scientific personnel (more precisely, an unfavorable change in their age structure) and the notorious "brain drain".

Both of these problems have become the center of attention of the institutions of the world scientific community, as the intensity of research has begun to slow down significantly due to the aging of the "population" of science. The analysis showed that, firstly, they are closely related to each other and, secondly, purely financial injections or an increase in the graduation of graduate students turn out to be ineffective.

It can be said that the share of two categories of scientists in the structure of the human resources potential of donor countries is growing disproportionately: those who teach

(older ages), and those who are studying (youth aged 25-28). And first of all, the cadres of the most productive age (28-43 years old) are washed out - those who have to work. In this regard, Russian age distributions are downright reference (See: Courier of Russian Academic Science and Higher School. -2002. - No. 4, www.courier.com.ru/top/cras.htm). One of the most reasonable explanations is as follows. After graduate school, the young man is faced with the final choice of profession. The choice is very difficult. Over the next 10-15 years, in the face of fierce competition, he either achieves success in the profession, or joins the ranks of losers. At the same time, the decisive circumstances are, firstly, the opportunity to work in these years in the best front-line teams (or in constant communication with such teams) and, secondly, the opportunity to concentrate all efforts on obtaining research results, without being distracted by official intrigues and writing the following dissertations.

In this, the interests of the scientist and the interests of the community coincided, and therefore organizational means were found to solve the problem. There was no need to invent anything. As a standard organizational form of the formation of a scientist, one of the most ancient institutions of the scientific profession was chosen and fixed in all civilized countries - post-doctoral internships. Its essence is that a young researcher who has successfully received a degree works in various research teams for several years (migration is one of the key conditions), shows in practice what he is worth and what he can claim. After that, he is already based own experience makes a career choice: stays

in research, leading a micro-team (“Senior researcher”, “Principal Investigator”), concentrates on teaching, goes into scientific management or becomes a consultant to a business corporation.

Despite the differences in national traditions in different countries internship conditions, requirements for interns, etc. maximally standardized. The status of a researcher accumulated during the period of internships practically does not depend on formal ranks and titles - the second degree, associate professor, professorship, etc. The community is only interested in the contribution of the researcher to the common cause - the results obtained. Community information systems keep track of the activities and careers of each researcher.

The institutionalization of postdoctoral internships simultaneously contributed to the solution of a number of other problems of science management, modifying the scientific bureaucracy.

First, we are talking about the evaluation of scientific organizations according to their attractiveness for potential trainees - members of the community who are most motivated by a scientific career.

Secondly, we are talking about the assessment of scientific and educational organizations in terms of the attractiveness of their graduate students for internships.

Thirdly, a standard procedure for permanent horizontal mobility of researchers emerged as a remedy for stagnation.

Fourthly, a standard procedure has been created for the rapid mobilization of the most wealthy and motivated part of the research potential in promising areas of the research front.

But what about the "leak"? Numerous studies show that this process depends primarily on two factors. The first one is

the presence within the country of normal conditions for internal migration and intensive exchange of personnel. Second

The readiness of the official system of state management of science to ensure the career of a scientist (his right to occupy departments, manage laboratories, etc.) primarily and mainly based on the results of his research, that is, according to the criteria adopted in the scientific community.

And vice versa, the greater the role in the official hierarchy is given to various formal criteria, the more paper barriers a scientist has to overcome in order to obtain official status, the greater the “leakage” and, accordingly, the faster the aging of the personnel potential of science. Thus, the “brain drain” (many scientists leave, even losing their salaries) worries the governments of prosperous European countries, clinging to inert bureaucratic traditions, for good reason. The severity of the problems naturally increases in the poorer countries.

Thus, it is thanks to the autonomy of the scientific profession in preparing its recruits and controlling their careers that the scientific community finds new resources that are inaccessible to the bureaucratic institutions of science management. Moreover, the faster and more fully these resources are built into the standard bureaucratic arsenal of management, the less costly for society science enters a new round of its organizational development.

3. Rewards, sanctions and motivational control

The mechanisms of scientific recognition responsible for the social health of the scientific community operate in parallel along two lines.

The first of them is expressed in the fact that the merits of a member of the scientific community

find recognition in the accumulation of his professional status, which is expressed in the awarding of various kinds of honorary awards and titles, election to public posts in professional societies, etc.

The second line of recognition reflects the activity of the scientist in the processes that determine the activities of the scientific community at the moment, the current "visibility" (visibility) of a professional. Institutes of disciplinary communication provide an opportunity to promptly bring this indicator to the scientific community. The result of the recognition of this activity is an increase in the opportunity to receive research subsidies or grants, an influx of graduate students (they bring tuition fees or grants to the university), invitations to participate in prestigious projects, etc. This encourages work for the scientific community.

The separation of these two forms of scientific recognition is one of the most effective organizational innovations in science in the 20th century, effectively demonstrating the vital importance of the autonomy of the scientific community in any social system. The need for such autonomy is recognized in most developed countries.

All these, however, are secondary forms of rewarding the successful work of a community member. The primary and most important form of participant reward is the most valuable scientific "currency" - information. The community pays for the contributions of participants with informational advantages, which, in the conditions of the most intense competition, are much more promising than any titles and awards.

The status of the official reviewer of the journal gives access to manuscripts of articles, the content of which will become known to the community only after a few

to months or years. Membership on the editorial board of the journal not only expands these opportunities, but also allows you to influence policy within the relevant field of research. Participation in expert commissions and councils of various foundations and funding agencies acquaints the expert with research that is yet to be carried out. And the more successfully a scientist works, the more information benefits he receives from the community.

Along with status advantages in access to information, a successfully working scientist also falls into the circle of elite communication. Communicating in this circle with luminaries, he can quickly learn about the problem or achieve almost immediately the most qualified discussion of his own problem.

Issues of operational communication are of particular importance in the formation of a new direction of research. A special study of this topic in connection with "invisible colleges" shows that the mechanisms regulating this process, firstly, are similar in various fields of science, and secondly, they allow a fairly rigorous description.

The model for the formation of a scientific specialty is based on two characteristics of communication between participants: 1) types of communication and

2) phases of development.

Types of communication

The connections between scientists within the system of scientific communication reveal four distinct types.

Each type captures social relations that are constantly encountered in science. These relationships are:

1) communication - a serious discussion of current research;

3) mentoring - the student is trained under the influence of his teacher;

4) collegiality - two scientists work in the same laboratory.

Most scientists are bound by some of these relationships. The task of the sociologist of science is to describe the pattern according to which they are carried out in each case, since such a pattern shows, as a first approximation, the phase which the intellectual group has reached.

During his intellectual life, an active scientist participating in the structure of communication (many scientists never enter it) regularly makes and breaks connections, and his research interests may change more than once during this period.

Phases of the development of a scientific specialty (“invisible college”)

In the course of the research, four phases were identified through which the scientific specialty passes in its formation.

normal phase. This is a period of relatively fragmented work of future participants and their small groups (for example, a group of graduate students headed by a supervisor) on problems that are close in content.

Communication goes mainly through formal channels, and its participants do not yet consider themselves connected with each other within any association. This phase in the history of a specialty is constructed retrospectively only in cases where a new specialty has been formed.

The phase of formation and development of the network is characterized by intellectual and organizational shifts leading to the unification of researchers in a single communication system. As a rule, a new approach to the study of problems, formulated by the leader of one of the research groups, causes an explosion of enthusiasm among the scientific youth and brings a certain number of supporters under the banner of the leader, but at the same time, this approach has not yet received recognition in the disciplinary community as a whole. Participants form a network of sustainable communications.

The phase of intensive development of the program of a new direction due to the actions of a close-knit group, which is formed by the most active participants in the communication network. This group formulates and selects a small number of important problems (ideally one problem) for a highly focused development, while the rest of the network members receive operational information about each achievement of a new grouping, are guided by it in planning their research and thereby ensure the development of problems for the entire front.

The phase of institutionalization of a new specialty. The scientific results obtained by the cohesive group provide a new approach with community acceptance, new directions of research are emerging based on the cohesive group program. At the same time, however, the close-knit group breaks up, its former members head independent groups, each of which develops its own

group's own program special problems. The specialty receives formal means of organization (journals, bibliographic headings, departments, training courses, sections in professional associations, etc.), and relations within it are again moving into a normal phase.

In each phase of the development of the "invisible college", the self-consciousness of the participants in the emerging specialty undergoes changes as follows: a romantic period (coinciding in time with the normal phase of the development of the specialty); dogmatic (coinciding in time with the phase of the communication network and cohesive group); academic (specialty phase).

Network phases arise - sometimes for brief, sometimes for longer periods - by focusing the attention of a few scientists on a specific area of problems. Many of those scientists who are not currently included in the activities of a certain network or cohesive group may become involved in it later or were involved earlier.

The model describes the complete process, including its successful completion. Of course, in practice, not every group that unites in a network then reaches the stage of a cohesive group, specialty, etc. Each step along this path depends primarily on the quality of the scientific results obtained by the group. Communication mechanisms only demonstrate the organizational capacity of the community to support such activities.

At the same time, each researcher in these conditions sees his own prospects, and his professional ambitions are supported by the incentive and reward mechanisms that the community has at its disposal.

The autonomy of the community, which has been discussed many times, only makes sense if the community is able to establish normal working relations with other institutions that are part of its socio-economic environment. Unlike the service professions, a scientist usually cannot receive direct financial reward from society for the results of his individual activities. The scientific community acts as an intermediary between it and society.

4. Community and Society

If in the studies of the classical sociology of science the relations between the scientific community and national public institutions (politics, state, business, etc.) occupied a central place, today the whole system of relations cannot be considered outside and independently of the integration processes that characterize the dynamics of industrialized countries . We are talking about political integration, about the globalization of the economy (and, accordingly, about the internationalization of anti-globalization movements), about new risks of scientific development, the unpredictable consequences of which can threaten not only states, but every single person...

Dynamics general situation corrects and features of its reflection in the subject of sociology.

Science and politics

In the traditional nation state, science policy was understood primarily as a system and institutions for making decisions on the development strategy of the country's scientific and technical complex, as well as actions for the practical implementation of these decisions. With few exceptions, all of these activities were located in

zone of bureaucratic routine and, as a rule, had little to do with the actual political process (struggle for power, votes). Science was perceived only as one of the means of implementing the military, economic and other areas of policy, directly related to the prospects of party programs. Science also played its role in international politics, exerting a significant influence on the prestige of the state and supporting its sovereign ambitions.

The radical change in the situation was that modern science policy is increasingly becoming a public policy. Expenses for science, directions and forms of its development, its participation in the life of society - all this becomes a subject of discussion and directly affects the electoral prospects of an individual politician or political party.

An increasing role in these processes is beginning to be played by public control over the development of science and the use of its achievements. Accordingly, constant monitoring of the population's attitude to science in general, to certain areas of its development, and to its participation in other processes becomes vital for politics. To this end, politicians, together with the scientific community, constantly conduct a massive study of public opinion about science. In the countries of the European Union, this is regularly done by the Eurobarometer service, in the USA - by a number of no less well-known institutions for studying public opinion. These surveys are carried out in close cooperation with the institutions of the scientific community, and their results are widely discussed.

Scientific community and social movements

Relationships in the triangle "state - scientific community -

social movements" went through a long and painful process of "rebuilding". At first, science policy was formed without appeal to public opinion. There were uncoordinated, ineffective attempts to counteract the sharp reaction of society to the facts, when the development of science and technology led to clearly undesirable consequences ( Chernobyl disaster, the Aral Sea, the energy catastrophe in the United States and other disasters that are clearly related to the imperfection of modern science and technology or the political irresponsibility of using their achievements). The reaction was reduced to hushing up the facts, propaganda campaigns that were supposed to prove to the public the singularity, the accident of catastrophes, and so on.

Such a policy has led to results that are directly opposite to those desired. Social movements, initiated by individual events or a general deterioration in the situation, which in one way or another was associated with the consequences of scientific and technological development, acquired an openly confrontational character. They quickly became politicized and often turned into a significant destructive force.

All this forced the search for a new strategy, in search of which the state and politicians turned to the scientific community, which also turned out to be the “injured party”.

In general, science policy is gradually beginning to be structured in such a way as to instill in society the consciousness that the risk associated with the development of science and technology is inseparable from its achievements. The public must be informed about the very nature of scientific knowledge, not only about the achievements, but also about the organic weaknesses of the scientific method, which is not absolute.

nym, and about the nature of technical solutions, which, even in the best case, are optimal only from the point of view of a limited, obviously incomplete set of criteria.

We will have to get used to the idea that the benefits that the development of science and technology brings with it are relative. But the development of the innovation complex is not a spontaneous, inevitable process. The society can regulate this process, and in the end, it is left with the choice of whether to finance new achievements of the innovation complex and related new level well-being and a new level of risk, or abandon some areas of search.

Science and business

The active position of the scientific community and the recognition of its institutions as a full-fledged subject of the science management process have radically changed the relationship between science, state power and business, and thus ideas about the driving forces of economic development.

The need for such changes emerged as early as the 1970s by no means in connection with the management of science. It was about finding new ways to develop high technology. The traditional system of "innovation implementation", in which 12-15 years pass from the appearance of a fruitful scientific idea to a competitive market product based on its use, turned out to be completely ineffective in the new conditions. During this time, entire generations of technologies were replaced, and it was not possible to predict changes in market conditions for such periods, just as it is not possible today. As a result, the level of risk for corporations operating in the most advanced and important

including for the security of the state, regions. The state, too, could not take this risk, thereby reducing the level of competition and seriously endangering the entire budgetary policy.

After lengthy searches and experiments, it turned out that the most promising way is to transfer the main part of the innovation process and, accordingly, the commercial risk associated with this to the scientists themselves, or rather, to those of them who agreed to this. Scientists-businessmen received serious advantages - they could more quickly follow the development of research in their field and, accordingly, respond to changes in the situation faster than competitors.

Major changes were needed in intellectual property laws to allow creators of innovations to exploit them commercially. The tax and credit policy was adjusted to stimulate the development of small and medium-sized innovative businesses, the so-called "venture" firms.

Let's say right away that the level of risk for each owner of the company remained high as before. Approximately 75-80% of venture capital firms go bankrupt in the very first years of their existence. The rest of the firms are included in overall structure economy by selling their products to large corporations, the state or end consumers. And only a few, like Microsoft, grow into large corporations.

However, the new scheme for the dissemination of innovations turned out to be successful in the main - the interval between a scientific idea and the appearance of the final product was reduced to an average of 3-4 years, and a significant part of the risk was distributed among thousands of small entrepreneurs. The level of competition has increased significantly.

The economic results turned out to be so impressive that today, for example, in all developed countries, the problem of innovation is formulated only in terms of programs for the development of innovations and small scientific business. The overall confidence of business in science has also increased.

Structural changes in the relations between science, production and business in the sphere of high technologies are no less significant. The ruin of venture capital firms is constantly replenishing the labor market with the most scarce category of workers - qualified specialists with experience in both science and business. The overwhelming majority of them either return to applied research or come to large corporations as hired managers and consultants.

New challenges

In a brief summary of the achievements of science, decades of labor of hundreds of researchers, difficulties, painful searches and dramatic failures, which are always an order of magnitude greater than successes, remain outside the brackets. Moreover, at each stage of the work, its participants are not at all sure that the right path, firstly, exists at all, and secondly, that it was they who chose it, and not their rivals. And if we are talking about the fate of mankind, then to this drama of ideas is added a huge personal responsibility: “Who, if not me?”

These features of the behavior of the professional community are especially clearly visible in situations with an open ending. Unlike social movements and politicians, scientists, three decades ago, after the first successful experiments in genetic engineering, noted with alarm that their long-term consequences were practically insignificant.

can be predicted with reasonable certainty.

The extreme pain of the situation was that the object of the discussion was the restriction of activities to achieve the main goal of science - intensive replenishment of the array of scientific knowledge.

Along with this, research on bioethics received a new impetus, appropriate additions were made to the charters of a number of professional societies and the codes of conduct of their members, and most importantly, a serious basis for the interaction of the scientific community is being formed, state institutions, representative power,

business and public organizations

In other words, the entire arsenal of tools that a democratic society has at its disposal is used to discuss a vital issue and control decision-making in any development of the situation.

And today, when even politicians gradually begin to feel the tragic meaning of the word “irreversibility” in connection with human cloning, such interaction is the maximum that society can mobilize in response to the new challenge of the times. At the same time, as already mentioned, the final remains open: science

This is foresight, but not Providence.

V. BORZENKOV, Professor, Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov

The task of developing a language for broad interdisciplinary communication, i.e. the question of the unity of scientific knowledge, again, like a century ago, has become one of the central philosophical discussions about the development of modern science. Outstanding representatives of its most diverse fields take an interested part in it: physicist, Nobel Prize winner

S. Weinberg, the creator of sociobiology E. Wilson, a well-known specialist in the problems of the methodology of the humanities, the German historian O. Ek-sle, and many others. etc. As a cross-cutting idea, the idea of unity passed through all the sessions of the seminar called "Scientific Thought", established by the Free University of Brussels in 1997 and led by I. Prigogine until his untimely death in 2002. Not surprisingly, the topic "Possible

The problem of the unity of science at the turn of the century

whether the integration of natural sciences and human sciences? was allocated for discussion at a special meeting within the framework of the XXI World Philosophical Congress, held in Istanbul from August 10 to 17, 2003 (See: Questions of Philosophy. -2004. - No. 3) What do we have today? The general pathos of modern research, untouched by the muddy wave of postmodernist debauchery, is a call for a new dialogue between the natural sciences and the humanities. But on what basis? This is where the problem starts. The diversity and inconsistency of the expressed points of view are discouraging. At the same time, it would be wrong to assume that the discussion has returned to “full circles” and that no progress has been made over the past century either in achieving clarity of substance